Laserfiche WebLink
Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical <br />difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: <br />Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? <br />Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? <br />Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? <br />Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? <br />Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof the locality? <br />As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot <br />constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be <br />imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough <br />proportionality to the impact created by the variance. <br />Findings of Fact <br />Staff offers the followingtwenty(20)findings of fact for review: <br />General Findings <br />1.The property is in the R-2Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. <br />2.The lot is 15,241square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100feet in width, <br />and 165feet in depth. <br />3.The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning <br />Districtbecause of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. <br />4.Because theexisting accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west <br />property line,the structure encroachesbetween twenty-four (24) feet six (6) inches and <br />twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west <br />property line, leaving a setback of five (5) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight <br />(8) inches between the structure and the west property lineat its closest point. <br />5.The existing accessory structureencroaches three (3) feet eleven (11) inches into the ten <br />(10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet one (1) <br />inch between the structure and the south property line. <br />6.The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or west property line <br />setbacks. <br />7.The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into <br />the thirty(30) foot setback alongthe entire length of the structure. <br />8.The proposed accessory structure encroaches an additional two (2) feet into the south <br />property line setback. <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 <br />P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 <br />711 <br />Page of <br />